Posted on 12/01/2008 6:04:32 AM PST by pissant
Controversy continues to surround President-elect Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as president, and a case involving his birth certificate waits for its day before the U.S. Supreme Court. A constitutional lawyer said were it to be discovered that Mr. Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen, it would have grave consequences for the nation.
According to the Constitution, a president must be a natural born citizen of the U.S. Mr. Obama's critics have failed to force him legally to produce his original birth certificate, and Mr. Obama has resisted any attempt to make him do so. Currently, only Hawaii Department of Health officials have access to Mr. Obama's original records.
Some of Mr. Obama's critics have said he was born in Kenya and have claimed he is a citizen of Kenya, Indonesia, or even a British subject.
Edwin Vieira, a constitutional lawyer who has practiced for 30 years and holds four degrees from Harvard, said if it were to be discovered Mr. Obama were not eligible for the presidency, it would cause many problems. They would be compounded if his ineligibility were discovered after he had been in office for a period of time.
"Let's assume he wasn't born in the U.S.," Mr. Vieira told The Bulletin. "What's the consequence? He will not be eligible. That means he cannot be elected validly. The people and the Electoral College cannot overcome this and the House of Representatives can't make him president. So what's the next step? He takes the oath of office, and assuming he's aware he's not a citizen, then it's a perjured oath."
Any appointments made by an ineligible president would have to be recalled, and their decisions would be invalidated.
(Excerpt) Read more at thebulletin.us ...
Questions.
Has a suit surfaced to prove his renouncing of dual citizenship re: Kenya (automatic till ‘63), Indonesia?
The US Supreme Ct. will need major moral strength to deal with this issue Constitutionally and go against the majority vote of the people, even despite Obama’s probable lies and subterfuge on this matter. It’s unclear to me that the Supremes possess that moral courage. Even supposedly conservative judge Clarence Thomas ruled that kiddie porn was Constitutional as long as it was virtual and didn’t use real children.
They're granted citizenship by statute.
I don’t believe that is correct, the Governor of Hawai’i did not do as you assert. The entire department of stored documents are sealed from rummaging, to prevent identity thefts. That is standard procedure and Obama’s documents are not being handled any differently than thousands of others. Besides, if Fukino wants to help perpetrate a fraud or forgery, there is little anyone can do to stop her. She is honor bound ... but if she feels his presidency is above her sowrn duty, she could change her allegiance and you nor I would ever likely know.
I don't wish to be interpreted as being negative, but I believe we have to be realistic.
But, what sting is that? When have the middle aged, middle class rioted? Just what is it that we will sting them with? Faxes and phone calls?
And just what percentage of the population would you consider to be true, sincere conservatives? How many people are going to march on Washington to protest the inauguration of Obama? Block the streets & storm the capitol? People with jobs and serious obligations don't do that.
Just how much have we intimidated the congress and the courts thus far?
By all means, let's sting them. Someone give me a blueprint. Seems to me members of congress and the courts have been, are now, and will continue to gleefully urinate on us with bottomless bladders.
“SCOTUS ruled that he was a “citizen” - NOT “natural born citizen” and it was ENTIRELY correct, per interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
No, the Court ruled he was a citizen at birth. U.S. laws define citizen at birth as opposed to naturalized citizen. You would have to point out to me what the difference between ‘citizen at birth’ and ‘natural born citizen’ is and where that is legally defined for your position to be correct.”
Correct - citizenship at birth is jus soli. BUT SHOW ME WHERE SCOTUS DEFINED “CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH” TO BE “NATURAL BORN”.
As far as my SPECIFIC interpretation, yes ... it is my opinion, STRONGLY supported by Blackstone and Vattel - whom the Founding Fathers relied upon heavily when formulating law.
But you would be better had your position been STRONGLY supported by U.S. law and Supreme Court decisions. Until it is, it is your opinion only.”
Correct - but I STATED IT WAS MY OPINION in my post ...
YOU, OTOH, flat out stated that a citizen by birth is a natural born citizen - YOU INSERTED YOUR OPINION THERE.
YOU would be better had your position been STRONGLY supported by U.S. law and Supreme Court decisions. Until it is, it is your opinion only.
“No it would not, which indicates that you haven’t read the Ark decision or any of the applicable laws. If you had you certainly would have read this part: “The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory...”
So your suggestion that Hitler’s offspring would have been citizens is, of course, ridiculous.”
NO - IT WAS NOT MY SUGGESTION - I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT IT WAS YOUR OPINION - FROM YOUR REMARKS IN THE PREVIOUS POST ...
GOOD TO SEE THAT YOU AT LEAST READ ARK - I DID ...
Well, we really don’t have anything in our stingers, but don’t tell them.
“The Supreme Court Justices’ devotion to” their lives, their families lives, and their futures....(not to mention their sacred honor owed to) “the Constitution will be severely tested soon.”
Got you.
Actually these are REAL cases as opposed to an imaginary distraction. Not only is it not a distraction but it is an excellent opportunity to familiarize oneself with the US Constitution.
I am sure you could have performed miracles in the time it took for you to read and consider this.
Why isn’t every citizen concerned that the Constitution be upheld in such an important instant? And why would you believe the GOP has any importance if a fundamental aspect of the Constitution can be casually disregarded?
Has there been any news today from the SCOTUS that I missed? I thought today was the day the first suit made it to the conference at which they see if 4 of ‘em want to take it.
Nope - no change on Berg, Wrotnowski, or Donofrio ...
Maybe it has not been updated yet.
12/1 was date by which Obama had to respond to Berg - looks like the deadline passed ...
12/5 is SCOTUS conference on Donofrio ...
American law trumps foreign wrt life in American so you would be eligible having no allegiance to another power. Italy’s claim on you outside of Italy is null.
Get that campaign going.
“We actually select the people who select the President. We voted for electors and if Obama is ineligible, then the electors can choose any qualified candidate and vote. I suppose a state could choose to have another election and seat a different set of electors.
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”
Correct - except most States have changed their election laws to “winner-take-all”.
If Obama is ruled ineligible, it is like he NEVER ran - his slates in each State would be DQ’d and replaced with the runner-up’s electors ...
To let HIS electors stand would be akin to stuffing the ballot box, DQ’ing the winner, THEN letting THEM choose who they want ...
Lively discussion, glad it’s getting some attention. Amendment XX, Sec. 3 addresses certain situations in which a president elect is unable to assume office. It doesn’t refer to this case/situation specifically, but does suggest an order of succession (the VP elect) “if the President elect shall have failed to qualify” (presuming ‘to qualify’ here could easily include failing eligibility) and “act as President until a President shall have qualified”, in a sentence covering a pre-inaugural time frame.
If this is thrown into the HOuse it can only vote for those receiving EVs for president. This means McCain.
The meaning of your comment escapes me.
The potential for violence is being greatly exaggerated. Let the Gangster Disciples, Latin kings and Insane Unknowns go up against the National Guard. It could produce some good results.
“Give it a rest non-sequitur - Biden was Obama’s choice and if found to be a fraud, then his choice was fraudulent - The vote was for Obama and not Biden.
Yeah, I’ll give it up. Just as soon as you point to whatever law or what article of the Constitution you used to arrive at your conclusion. Please point it out to me because I sure as hell can’t find it.”
Non-Sequitar:
SCOTUS HAS TAKEN LIBERTIES BEFORE ...
The following cases HAD NO LAW, NOR DID THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDE FOR:
Gideon v. Wainwright (right to court-apponted counsel)
Miranda v. Arizona (right to have rights read to suspects)
In THESE cases, SCOTUS asserted “original intent”, “originalism”, call it what you want, but they INTERPRETED the Constitution.
The laws came AFTER the SCOTUS decisions ...
There is still a chance that the 12th could apply. If Obama’s votes are disqualified that would leave McCain with an insufficient number of EV which would then throw it to the House. You could be right that the 20th would be operative but it is not clear which would be involved not knowing what the Congress would do at the critical moment.
Interesting that your posted article is from a MSM big city newspaper site. Plus, in contrast to some of the other lefty media stories about the pendant suits regarding the Annointed One, there is none of The BS in O’s behalf that he has shown a Hawaii birth certificate or that the Hawaii Health Dept. officials have verified he was born in HI, etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.